Re: [PATCH RFC 00/77] Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern
From: Ben Hutchings <hidden>
Date: 2013-10-03 22:52:01
Also in:
linux-ide, linux-mips, linux-nvme, linux-pci, linux-rdma, linux-scsi, lkml, netdev
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 12:48 +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
This series is against "next" branch in Bjorn's repo:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/helgaas/pci.git
Currently pci_enable_msi_block() and pci_enable_msix() interfaces
return a error code in case of failure, 0 in case of success and a
positive value which indicates the number of MSI-X/MSI interrupts
that could have been allocated. The latter value should be passed
to a repeated call to the interfaces until a failure or success:
for (i = 0; i < FOO_DRIVER_MAXIMUM_NVEC; i++)
adapter->msix_entries[i].entry = i;
while (nvec >= FOO_DRIVER_MINIMUM_NVEC) {
rc = pci_enable_msix(adapter->pdev,
adapter->msix_entries, nvec);
if (rc > 0)
nvec = rc;
else
return rc;
}
return -ENOSPC;
This technique proved to be confusing and error-prone. Vast share
of device drivers simply fail to follow the described guidelines.
This update converts pci_enable_msix() and pci_enable_msi_block()
interfaces to canonical kernel functions and makes them return a
error code in case of failure or 0 in case of success.[...] I think this is fundamentally flawed: pci_msix_table_size() and pci_get_msi_cap() can only report the limits of the *device* (which the driver usually already knows), whereas MSI allocation can also be constrained due to *global* limits on the number of distinct IRQs. Currently pci_enable_msix() will report a positive value if it fails due to the global limit. Your patch 7 removes that. pci_enable_msi_block() unfortunately doesn't appear to do this. It seems to me that a more useful interface would take a minimum and maximum number of vectors from the driver. This wouldn't allow the driver to specify that it could only accept, say, any even number within a certain range, but you could still leave the current functions available for any driver that needs that. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.